A  \  Vy\  \ 


The  Church 

and 

International  Peace 


A  Series  of  Papers  by  the  Trustees  of 
THE  CHURCH  PEACE  UNION 

V 

The  Way  to  Disarm: 

A  Practical  Proposal 

by 

Hamilton  Holt 


THE  CHURCH  PEACE  UNION 
70  Fifth  Avenue 


NEW  YORK 


The  Church  and  International  Peace 

A  uniform  series  of  papers  by  the  Trustees  of  The 
Church  Peace  Union,  treating  the  problems  of  war  and 
peace  from  the  point  of  view  of  religion,  and  especially 
emphasizing  the  message  the  Church  should  have  for  the 
world  in  this  time  of  war. 


ALREADY  PUBLISHED 

1.  The  Cause  of  the  War,  by  Rev.  Charles  E.  Jefferson,  D.D. 

2.  The  Midnight  Cry,  by  Rt.  Rev.  David  H.  Greer,  D.D. 

3.  The  Scourge  of  Militarism,  by  Rev.  Peter  Ainslie,  D.D. 

4.  Europe’s  War,  America’s  Warning,  by  Rev.  Charles  S.  Mac- 

farland,  Ph.D. 

5.  The  Way  to  Disarm,  by  Hamilton  Holt. 


IN  PREPARATION 

1.  The  Breakdown  of  Civilization,  by  Rev.  William  Pierson  Mer¬ 

rill,  D.D. 

2.  After  the  War — ^What?  by  Rev.  Francis  E.  Clark,  D.D. 

3.  Our  Grounds  of  Hope,  by  Rt.  Rev.  William  Lawrence,  D.D. 

4.  The  United  Church  and  the  Terms  of  Peace,  by  Rev.  Frederick 

Lynch,  D.D. 

5.  The  Church’s  Mission  as  to  War  and  Peace,  by  Rev.  Junius  B. 

Remensnyder,  D.D. 

6.  Adequate  Armaments,  by  Prof.  William  I.  Hull. 


The  Way  to  Disarm :  A  Practical  Proposal 

By  Hamilton  Holt 
Editor  of  The  Independent 


In  his  famous  essay,  Perpetual  Peace,  published  in  1795, 
Emmanuel  Kiant,  perhaps  the  greatest  intellect  the  world  has 
ever  produced,  declared  that  we  never  can  have  universal 
peace  until  the  world  is  politically  organized  and  it  will  never 
be  possible  to  organize  the  world  politically  until  the  people, 
not  the  kings,  rule.  And  he  added  that  the  peoples  of  the 
earth  must  cultivate  and  attain  the  spirit  of  hospitality  and 
good  will  towards  all  races  and  nations. 

If  this  be  the  true  philosophy  of  peace,  then  when  the 
Great  War  is  over,  and  the  stricken  sobered  peoples  set  about 
to  rear  a  new  civilization  on  the  ashes  of  the  old,  they  cannot 
hope  to  abolish  war  unless  they  are  prepared  to  extend  de¬ 
mocracy  everywhere,  to  banish  hatred  from  their  hearts,  and 
to  organize  the  international  realm  on  a  basis  of  law  rather 
than  force. 

The  questions  of  the  extension  of  democracy  and  the 
cultivation  of  benevolence  are  domestic  ones.  They  can 
hardly  be  brought  about  by  joint  action  of  the  nations.  World 
organization  and  disarmament,  however,  can  be  provided  for 
in  the  terms  of  peace  or  by  international  agreement  there¬ 
after.  As  the  United  States  seems  destined  to  play  an  im¬ 
portant  part  in  the  great  reconstruction  at  the  end  of  the 
war,  this  is  perhaps  the  most  important  question  now  before 
American  statesmanship. 

L.\W  OR  WAR 

The  only  two  powers  that  ever  have  governed  or  ever 


3 


can  govern  human  beings  are  reason  and  force — law  and  war. 
If  we  do  not  have  the  one  we  must  have  the  other. 

The  peace  movement  is  the  process  of  substituting  law 
for  war.  Peace  follows  justice,  justice  follows  law,  law  fol¬ 
lows  political  organization.  The  world  has  already  achieved 
peace,  through  justice,  law  and  political  organization  in  ham¬ 
lets,  towns,  cities,  states  and  even  in  the  forty-six  sovereign 
civilized  nations  of  the  world.  But  in  that  international  realm 

I 

over  and  above  each  nation,  in  which  each  nation  is  equally 
sovereign,  the  only  final  way  for  a  nation  to  secure  its  rights 
is  by  the  use  of  force.  Force,  therefore — or  war  as  it  is 
called  when  exerted  by  a  nation  against  another  nation — is 
at  present  the  only  final  method  of  settling  international  difler- 
ences.  In  other  words,  the  nations  are  in  that  state  of  civili¬ 
zation  to-day  where,  without  a  qualm,  they  claim  the  right  to 
settle  their  disputes  in  a  manner  which  they  would  actually 
put  their  own  subjects  to  death  for  imitating.  The  peace 
problem,  then,  is  nothing  but  the  problem  of  finding  ways  and 
means  of  doing  between  the  nations  what  has  already  been 
done  within  the  nations.  International  law  follows  private 
law.  The  “United  Nations”  follow  the  United  States. 

At  present  international  law  has  reached  the  same  state 
of  development  that  private  law  reached  in  the  tenth  century. 
Professor  T.  J.  Lawrence  (in  his  essay  The  Evolution  of 
Peace)  distinguishes  four  stages  in  the  evolution  of  private 
law : 

1.  Kinship  is  the  sole  bond;  revenge  and  retaliation  are 
unchecked,  there  being  no  authority  whatever. 

2.  Organization  is  found  an  advantage  and  tribes  under 
a  chief  subdue  undisciplined  hordes.  The  right  of  private 
vengeance  within  the  tribe  is  regulated  but  not  forbidden. 

3.  Courts  of  justice  exist  side  by  side  with  a  limited  right 
of  vengeance. 

4.  Private  war  is  abolished,  all  disputes  being  settled  by 
the  courts. 

It  is  evident  that  in  international  relations  we  are  enter¬ 
ing  into  the  third  stage,  because  the  nations  have  already 


4 


created  an  international  tribunal  which  exists  side  by  side 
with  the  right  of  self-redress  or  war. 

LIKE  THE  AMERICAN  CONFEDERATION 

Furthermore,  a  careful  study  of  the  formation  of  the 
thirteen  American  colonies  from  separate  states  into  our  pres¬ 
ent  compact  Union  discloses  the  fact  that  the  nations  to-day 
are  in  the  same  stage  of  development  that  the  American 
colonies  were  about  the  time  of  their  first  confederation.  As 
the  United  States  came  into  existence  by  the  establishment 
of  the  Articles  of  Confederation  and  the  Continental  Congress, 
so  the  “United  Nations”  came  into  existence  by  the  estab¬ 
lishment  of  The  Hague  Court  and  the  recurring  Hague  Con¬ 
ferences;  The  Hague  Court  being  the  promise  of  the  Supreme 
Court  of  the  world  and  The  Hague  Conferences  being  the 
prophecy  of  the  parliament  of  man.  We  may  look  with  con¬ 
fidence,  therefore,  to  a  future  in  which  the  world  will  have  an 
established  court  with  jurisdiction  over  all  questions,  self- 
governing  conferences  with  power  to  legislate  on  all  affairs  of 
common  concern,  and  an  executive  power  of  some  form  to 
carry  on  the  decrees  of  both.  To  deny  this  is  to  ignore  all 
the  analogies  of  private  law  and  the  whole  trend  of  the 
world’s  political  history  since  the  Declaration  of  Independ¬ 
ence.  As  Secretary  of  State  Knox  said  not  long  ago : 

“We  have  reached  a  point  when  it  is  evident  that  the  future 
holds  in  store  a  time  when  war  shall  cease,  when  the  nations 
of  the  world  shall  realize  a  federation  as  real  and  vital  as 
that  now  subsisting  between  the  component  parts  of  a  single 
state.” 

It  would  be  difficult  to  recall  a  more  far-visioned  state¬ 
ment  than  this  emanating  from  the  chancellery  of  a  great  state. 
It  means  nothing  less  than  that  the  age-long  dreams  of  the 
poets,  the  prophets  and  the  philosophers  have  at  last  entered 
the  realms  of  practical  statesmanship. 

But  now  the  Great  War  has  come  upon  us.  “When  the 
storm  is  spent  and  the  desolation  is  complete ;  when  the  flower 
of  the  manhood  of  Europe  has  past  into  eternal  night;  when 


5 


famine  and  pestilence  have  taken  their  tithe  of  childhood  and 
age/’  will  then  the  exhausted  and  beggared  that  live  on  be 
able  to  undertake  the  task  of  establishing  that  World  Govern¬ 
ment  which  the  historian  Freeman  has  called  “the  most 
finished  and  the  most  artificial  production  of  political  in¬ 
genuity”  ? 


THE  HAGUE  OR  THE  LEAGUE  OF  PEACE 

If  it  can  be  done  at  all  it  can  only  be  done  in  one  of 
two  ways. 

First.  By  building  on  the  foundations  already  laid  at 
The  Hague,  the  Federation  of  the  World. 

Second.  By  establishing  a  great  Confederation  or  League 
of  Peace,  composed  of  those  few  nations  who  through  political 
evolution  or  the  suffering  of  war  have  at  last  seen  the  light 
and  are  ready  here  and  now  to  disarm. 

It  is  obvious  that  the  time  is  scarcely  ripe  for  voluntary 
and  universal  disarmament  by  joint  agreemient.  There  are  too 
many  medieval-minded  nations  still  in  existence.  The  Federa¬ 
tion  of  the  World  miust  still  be  a  dream  for  many  years  to 
come. 

The  immediate  establishment  of  a  League  of  Peace,  how¬ 
ever,  would  in  fact  constitute  a  first  step  toward  world  federa¬ 
tion  and  does  not  offer  insuperable  difficulties.  The  idea  of 
a  League  of  Peace  is  not  novel.  All  federal  governments  and 
confederations  of  governments,  both  ancient  and  modern,  are 
essentially  leagues  of  peace,  even  though  they  may  have  func¬ 
tions  to  perform  which  often  lead  directly  to  w^ar. 

The  ancient  Achaian  League  of  Greece,  the  Confederation 
of  Swiss  Cantons,  the  United  Provinces  of  The  Netherlands, 
the  United  States  of  America,  and  the  Commonwealth  of  Aus¬ 
tralia  are  the  most  nearly  perfect  systems  of  federated  gov¬ 
ernments  known  to  history.  Less  significant,  but  none  the 
less  interesting  to  students  of  government,  are  the  Latin 
League  of  thirty  cities,  the  Hanseatic  League,  the  Holy  Alli¬ 
ance,  and  in  modern  times,  the  German  Confederation.  Even 
the  recent  Concert  of  Europe  was  a  more  or  less  inchoate 


(1 


League  of  Peace.  The  ancient  leagues,  as  well  as  the  modern 
confederations,  have  generally  been  unions  of  offense  and  de¬ 
fense.  They  stood  ready,  if  they  did  not  actually  propose, 
to  use  their  common  forces  to  compel  outside  states  to  obey 
their  will.  Thus  they  were  as  frequently  leagues  of  oppression 
as  leagues  of  peace. 

THE  PROBLEM  OF  FORCE 

The  problem  of  the  League  of  Peace  is  therefore  the 
problem  of  the  use  of  force.  Force  internationally  expressed 
is  measured  in  armaments.  The  chief  discussion  which  has 
been  waged  for  the  past  decade  between  the  pacifists  and 
militarists  has  been  over  the  question  of  armaments.  The 
militarists  claim  that  armaments  insure  national  safety.  The 
pacifists  declare  they  inevitably  lead  to  war.  Both  disputants 
insist  that  the  present  war  furnishes  irrefutable  proof  of  their 
contentions. 

As  is  usual  in  cases  of  this  kind  the  shield  has  two  sides. 
The  confusion  has  arisen  from  a  failure  to  recognize  the 
threefold  function  of  force: 

1.  Force  used  for  the  maintenance  of  order — police  force. 

2.  Force  used  for  attack — aggression. 

3.  Force  used  to  neutralize  aggression — defense. 

Police  force  is  almost  wholly  good. 

Offense  is  almost  wholly  bad. 

Defense  is  a  necessary  evil,  and  exists  simply  to  neutralize 
force  employed  for  aggression. 

The  problem  of  the  peace  movement  is  how  to  abolish  the 
use  of  force  for  aggression,  and  yet  to  maintain  it  for  police 
purposes.  Force  for  defense  will  of  course  automatically 
cease  when  force  for  aggression  is  abolished. 

The  chief  problem  then  of  a  League  of  Peace  is  this: 
Shall  the  members  of  the  League  “not  only  keep  the  peace 
themselves,  but  prevent  by  force  if  necessary  its  being  broken 
by  others,”  as  ex-President  Roosevelt  suggested  in  his  Nobef 
Peace  Address  delivered  at  Christiania,  May  5,  1910?  Or 


7 


shall  its  force  be  exercised  only  within  its  membership  and 
thus  be  on  the  side  of  law  and  order  and  never  on  the  side 
of  arbitrary  will  or  tyranny?  Or  shall  it  never  be  used  at  all? 
Whichever  one  of  these  conceptions  finally  prevails  the  Great 
War  has  conclusively  demonstrated  that  as  long  as  War  Lords 
exist  defensive  force  must  be  maintained.  Hence  the  League 
must  be  prepared  to  use  force  against  any  nations  which  will 
not  forswear  force.  Nevertheless  a  formula  must  be  devised 
for  disarmament.  For  unless  it  is  a  law  of  nature  that  war 
is  to  consume  all  the  fruits  of  progress  disarmament  some  how 
and  some  way  must  take  place.  How  then  can  the  mainte¬ 
nance  of  a  force  for  defense  and  police  power  be  reconciled 
with  the  theory  of  disarmament? 

THE  CONSTITUTION  OF  THE  LEAGUE 

In  this  way :  Let  the  League  of  Peace  be  formed  on  the 
following  five  principles : 

First.  The  nations  of  the  League  shall  mutually  agree 
to  respect  and  guarantee  the  territory  and  sovereignty  of  each 
other. 

Second.  All  questions  that  cannot  be  settled  by  di¬ 
plomacy  shall  be  arbitrated. 

Third.  The  nations  of  the  League  shall  provide  a  periodi¬ 
cal  assembly  to  make  all  rules  to  become  law  unless  vetoed 
by  a  nation  within  a  stated  period. 

Fourth.  The  nations  shall  disarm  to  the  point  where  the 
combined  forces  of  the  League  shall  be  a  certain  per  cent 
higher  than  those  of  the  most  heavily  armed  nation  or  alli¬ 
ance  outside  of  the  League-  Detailed  rules  for  this  pro  rata 
disarmament  shall  be  formulated  by  the  Assembly. 

Fifth.  Any  member  of  the  League  shall  have  the  right  to 
withdraw  on  due  notice,  or  may  be  expelled  by  the  unani¬ 
mous  vote  of  the  others. 

The  advantages  that  a  nation  would  gain  in  becoming  a 
member  of  such  a  league  are  manifest.  The  risk  of  war 
would  be  eliminated  within  the  League.  Obviously  the  only 
.things  that  are  vital  to  a  nation  are  its  land  and  its  independ- 

8 


ence.  Since  each  nation  in  the  League  will  have  pledged  itself 
to  respect  and  guarantee  the  territory  and  the  sovereignty  of 
every  other,  a  refusal  to  do  so  will  logically  lead  to  compulsion 
by  the  other  members  of  the  League  or  expulsion  from  the 
League.  Thus  every  vital  question  will  be  automatically  re¬ 
served  from  both  war  and  arbitration  while  good  faith  lasts. 
All  other  questions  are  of  secondary  importance  and  can 
readily  be  arbitrated. 

By  the  establishment  of  a  periodical  assembly  a  method 
would  be  devised  whereby  the  members  of  the  League  could 
develop  their  common  intercourse  and  interests  as  far  and  as 
fast  as  they  could  unanimously  agree  upon  ways  and  means. 
As  any  law  could  be  vetoed  by  a  single  nation,  no  nation  could 
have  any  fear  that  it  would  be  coerced  against  its  will  by  a 
majority  vote  of  the  other  nations.  By  such  an  assembly  the 
League  might  in  time  agree  to  reduce  tariffs  and  postal  rates 
and  in  a  thousand  other  ways  promote  commerce  and  comity 
among  its  members. 

As  a  final  safeguard  against  coercion  by  the  other  mem¬ 
bers  of  the  League,  each  member  will  have  the  right  of  seces¬ 
sion  on  due  notice.  This  would  prevent  civil  war  within  the 
League.  The  right  of  expulsion  by  the  majority  will  prevent 
one  nation  by  its  veto  j>ower  indefinitely  blocking  all  progress 
of  the  League. 

THE  SCRAP  OF  PAPER 

But  it  will  be  said  that  all  these  agreements  will  have  no 
binding  effect  in  a  crisis.  A  covenant  is  a  mere  “scrap  of 
paper”  whose  provisions  will  be  violated  by  the  first  nation 
which  fancies  it  is  its  interest  to  do  so.  In  order  to  show  that 
their  faith  is  backed  up  by  deeds,  however,  the  nations  on  enter¬ 
ing  the  League  agree  to  disarm  to  a  little  above  the  danger 
point.  This  is  the  real  proof  of  their  conversion  to  the  peace 
idea. 

It  will  be  noticed  that  no  attempt  is  made  to  define  how 
the  force  of  the  League  shall  be  exerted-  This  is  left  for  the 
decision  of  the  Assembly  of  the  League.  The  suggestion  that 


9 


'‘the  nation  shall  disarm  to  the  point  where  the  combined 
forces  of  the  League  shall  be  a  certain  per  cent  higher  than 
those  of  the  most  heavily  armed  nation  or  alliance  outside 
the  League,”  implies  that  the  forces  of  the  League  shall 
be  used  for  the  neutralization  of  the  aggressive  force  of 
nations  outside  the  League — that  is,  for  defense.  But  shall 
not  the  force  of  the  League  be  also  used  as  police  power, 
that  is,  aggressively  to  maintain  international  law  and  order? 
A  League  with  power  to  exert  its  will  without  any  constitu¬ 
tional  limitations  might  easily  become  a  League  of  Oppression. 
It  would  have  the  right  to  be  judge  and  sheriff  in  its  own 
cause,  a  violation  of  the  first  principles  of  justice. 

It  would  not  be  over-sanguine  to  expect  that  the  As¬ 
sembly  of  the  League  would  vote  that  the  armaments  of  the 
League  should  be  brought  into  regular  and  concerted  action 
for  compelling  obedience  to  the  judicial  decisions  of  the  Court 
of  the  League  both  among  members  of  the  League  and  those 
outside  who  have  agreed  to  this  method  of  settling  their  dis¬ 
putes.  It  may  even  be  anticipated  that  the  force  of  the  League 
will  be  used  to  assist  one  of  the  members  of  the  League  in 
a  controversy  with  a  nation  outside  the  League  that  has 
not  previously  agreed  to  resort  to  arbitration  and  that  refuses 
so  to  agree  upon  request.  Such  an  agreement  would  tend 
^to  enthrone  law  and  suppress  arbitrary  action.  Entering  a 
League  with  such  a  policy  would  not  subject  the  United  States 
to  the  necessity  of  waging  war  thru  the  erroneous  action  of 
its  allies  in  an  “entangling  alliance,”  but  only  to  extend  the 
reign  of  law.  This  is  the  fundamental  purpose  of  our  Govern¬ 
ment  and  perhaps  the  United  States  is  now  ready  to  go  thus 
far. 

Thus  the  nations  which  join  the  League  will  enjoy  all  the 
economic  and  political  advantages  which  come  from  mutual 
co-operation  and  the  extension  of  international  friendship  and 
at  the  same  time  will  be  protected  by  an  adequate  force  against 
the  aggressive  force  of  the  greatest  nation  or  alliance  outside 
the  League.  The  League  therefore  reconciles  the  demand  of 
the  pacifists  for  the  limitation  of  armaments  and  eventual  dis- 


lO 


armament  and  the  demand  of  the  militarists  for  the  protection 
that  armament  affords.  Above  all  the  establishment  of  such 
a  league  will  give  the  liberal  parties  in  the  nations  outside  the 
League  an  issue  on  which  they  can  attack  their  governments 
so  as  sooner  or  later  to  force  them  to  apply  to  the  League 
for  membership.  As  each  one  enters  there  will  be  another 
pro  rata  reduction  of  the  military  forces  of  the  League  down 
to  the  armfament  of  the  next  most  powerful  nation  or  alliance 
outside  it;  until  finally  the  whole  world  is  federated  in  a 
brotherhood  of  universal  peace  and  armies  and  navies  are  re¬ 
duced  to  an  international  police  force. 

This  is  the  plan  for  a  League  of  Peace.  Is  the  hour  about 
to  strike  when  it  can  be  realized?  If  only  the  United  States, 
France  and  England  would  lead  in  its  formation,  Belgium, 
Holland,  Switzerland,  Denmark,  Norway,  Sweden,  Argentina, 
Brazil,  Chile  and  others  might  perhaps  join.  Even  if  Russia 
and  Germany  and  Japan  and  Italy  stayed  out,  the  League 
would  still  be  powerful  and  large  enough  to  begin  with  every 
auspicious  hope  of  success. 

THE  DESTINY  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES 

It  would  seem  to  be  the  manifest  destinv  of  the  United 
States  to  lead  in  the  establishment  of  such  a  league.  The 
United  States  is  the  world  in  miniature.  The  United  States 
is  the  greatest  league  of  peace  known  to  history.  The  United 
States  is  a  demonstration  to  the  world  that  all  the  races  and 
peoples  of  the  earth  can  live  in  peace  under  one  form  of  gov¬ 
ernment,  and  its  chief  value  to  civilization  is  a  demonstration 
of  what  this  form  of  government  is. 

Prior  to  the  formation  “of  a  more  perfect  union"  our 
original  thirteen  states  were  united  in  a  confederacy  strikingly 
similar  to  that  now  proposed  on  an  international  scale-  They 
were  obliged  by  the  articles  of  this  confederacy  to  respect 
each  other’s  territory  and  sovereignty,  to  arbitrate  all  ques¬ 
tions  among  themselves,  to  assist  each  other  against  any 
foreign  foe,  not  to  engage  in  war  unless  called  upon  by  the 
confederation  to  do  so  or  actually  invaded  by  a  foreign  foe, 


and  not  to  maintain  armed  forces  in  excess  of  the  strength 
fixed  for  each  state  by  all  the  states  in  congress  assembled. 

It  is  notable  that  security  against  aggression  from  states 
inside  or  outside  the  American  Union  accompanied  the  agree¬ 
ment  to  limit  armaments.  Thus  danger  of  war  and  size  of 
armaments  were  decreased  contemporaneously. 

It  is  also  notable  that  from  the  birth  of  the  Republic  to 
this  hour  every  President  of  the  United  States  has  advocated 
peace  through  justice.  From  the  first  great  Virginian  to  the 
last  great  Virginian,  all  have  abhorred  what  Thomas  Jefferson 
called  “the  greatest  scourge  of  mankind.” 

When  the  Great  War  is  over  and  the  United  States  is 
called  upon  to  lead  the  nations  in  reconstructing  a  new  order 
of  civilization,  why  might  not  Woodrow  Wilson  do  on  a  world 
scale  something  similar  to  what  George  Washington  did  on  a 
continental  scale? 

Stranger  things  than  this  have  happened  in  history.  Let 
us  add  to  the  Declaration  of  Independence  a  Declaration  of 
Interdependence. 


A  FEW  COMMENTS  ON  MR.  HOLT’S  PROPOSAL 

John  Bassett  Moore 

Formerly  Councillor  of  the  Department  of  State 

The  utmost  space  that  could  be  allotted  to  a  mere  com¬ 
ment  on  your  editorial,  “The  Way  to  Disarm:  A  Practical 
Proposal,”  would  not  suffice  for  the  expression  of  a  full  and 
reasoned  opinion  upon  that  very  interesting  and  able  paper. 
The  tendency  and  general  objective  are  altogether  commend¬ 
able;  the  principle  is  sound.  It  is  possible,  however,  that  some 
of  the  passages  in  your  argument  may  be  interpreted  more 
broadly  than  perhaps  was  intended. 

You  remark: 

“Peace  follows  justice,  justice  follows  law,  law  follows 
political  organization  ....  The  world  has  already  achieved 
peace  thru  justice,  law  and  political  organization  in  hamlets, 
towns,  cities,  states  and  even  in  the  forty-six  sovereign  civilized 

nations  of  the  world . The  peace  problem,  then,  is  nothing 

but  the  problem  of  finding  ways  and  means  of  doing  between 
the  nations  what  has  already  been  done  within  the  nations.” 

If  this  means  that  political  organization  and  the  regular 
administration  of  justice  have,  by  creating  legal  peace  within 
the  state,  diminished  the  use  of  violence  and  tended  to  pre¬ 
vent  war,  we  all  must  concur;  but,  if  we  are  asked  to  go  far¬ 
ther,  and  to  assume  that  the  imposition  upon  nations  of  a 
central  authority  or  their  entrance  into  a  league  will,  besides 
creating  legal  peace,  efficaciously  assure  the  maintenance  of 
actual  peace,  we  ought,  before  answering,  to  reckon  with  cer¬ 
tain  obvious  facts.  Altho  municipal  law  furnishes  within  the 
state  the  most  ample  safeguards  of  organization,  conditions 
not  of  legal  but  of  actual  warfare,  such  as  the  killing  of  men, 
the  destruction  of  property  and  the  prostration  of  legal  ad¬ 
ministration,  now  and  then  disturb  our  hamlets,  towns,  cities 
and  states.  In  reality,  when  we  come  to  consider  war  and 


13 


peace,  we  are  brought  face  to  face  with  the  sober  fact  that  the 
tendency  of  large  masses  of  men  (as  lately  illustrated,  shall 
we  say,  in  the  progressive  community  of  Colorado  and  the 
ancient  community  of  Ulster?)  to  oppose  the  law,  whether 
because  they  believe  it  to  be  unjust,  because  they  reject  its 
official  interpretation,  or  because  they  wish  to  eflfect  some 
quick  or  radical  change,  is  a  human  element  of  fundamental 
importance,  which  has  caused  civil  wars  to  occur  during  the 
past  century  with  remarkable  frequency.  Of  these  perhaps 
the  most  serious  is  that  which  befell  our  own  “League  of 
Peace” — a  conflict  generally  believed  to  have  been  accelerated 
by  a  judicial  decision  and  unquestionably  precipitated  at  a 
moment  when  we  had  substantially  neither  army  nor  navy. 
Only  last  year  we  recognized  with  many  congratulatory  phrases 
the  Republic  of  China,  in  whose  origin  and  maintenance,  just 
as  in  the  case  of  many  other  revolutions,  military  force  has 
been  an  appreciable  factor.  The  same  tendency  or  impulse  of 
large  masses  of  men  to  gain  their  ends  by  force  likewise  pro¬ 
duces  international  wars. 

No  doubt  one  of  the  best  assurances  against  the  indul¬ 
gence  of  this  propensity  is  a  regulated  governmental  control, 
and  for  this  reason  I  applaud  your  advocacy  of  a  practical 
step  toward  international  federation  for  the  attainment  of 
that  end,  without  intending,  however,  to  countenance  the  sup¬ 
position  that  we  may  slumber  upon  any  contrivance,  parlia¬ 
mentary,  judicial  or  otherwise,  municipal  or  international, 
as  an  all-sufficient  safeguard  against  outbreaks  of  violence- 
In  a  small  volume  which  I  published  two  years  ago  I  exprest 
my  profound  conviction,  which  reflection  and  subsequent 
events  have  served  only  to  confirm,  that  questions  of  war  and 
of  peace  must  continue  chiefly  to  depend  “upon  the  cultivation 
of  the  spirit  and  habit  of  justice,  of  self-control,  of  reciprocal 
recognition  of  rights  and  of  forbearence,”  and  that  “outside 
the  state,  just  as  within  the  state,  peace  will  be  permanently 
preserved  only  by  carrying  into  our  dealings  one  with  another 
the  sentiment  of  fraternity  and  the  spirit  of  conciliation.” 

New  York  City. 


14 


David  Starr  Jordan 

Chancellor  of  Leland  Stanford  Jr.  University 

I  have  read  with  great  interest  and  sympathy  Mr.  Holt’s 
proposition  of  a  League  of  Peace  against  war  and  against  ar¬ 
mament.  No  one  can  tell  what  the  future  will  bring,  but  it  is 
not  impossible  that  some  such  scheme  will  come  within  the 
range  of  practicable  politics. 

The  people  of  the  civilized  world  have  been  roughly 
divided  into  two  classes,  the  Imperialists  and  the  Democrats — 
those  who  believe  that  force  is  the  foundation  of  government, 
and  those  who  belive  that  the  government  should  be  a  form 
of  co-operation  of  the  people  concerned.  Both  classes  are 
represented  in  every  civilized  nation,  with  a  large  residuum  of 
a  third  class,  those  who  take  what  comes  and  ask  no  questions, 
becoming  thereby  the  allies  or  the  tools  of  the  first  of  these 
groups. 

In  the  movement  of  history,  the  second  class  has  grown 
steadily  at  the  expense  of  the  third,  for  popular  education 
means  democracy.  The  voice  of  the  people  is  potent  in  the 
nations  of  western  Europe,  and  it  is  supprest  only  for  a  time 
in  the  others. 

In  the  imperial  nations  the  man  is,  in  theory,  the  chattel 
of  the  state.  The  existence  and  the  righteousness  of  privilege 
is  taken  as  a  matter  of  course,  for  authority  which  does  not 
spring  from  the  people  must  arise  thru  privilege.  If  govern¬ 
ment  rests  on  force  as  the  expression  of  imperial  will,  this 
force  must  be  measured  in  terms  of  armies.  If  armies  are  the 
foundations  of  government,  they  must  be  inherently  righteous 
and  their  activities  a  necessary  function  of  the  state.  The 
only  function  of  an  army  is  war.  Hence  a  state  founded  on 
imperial  will  must  be  at  war,  active  or  passive,  all  the  time. 

Passive  war  is  the  threat  of  active  war.  By  such  threat, 
the  will  of  the  imperial  state  is  enforced  on  all  other  states, 
which  thru  weakness,  prudence  or  fear,  may  fail  to  assert 
themselves.  And  as  the  essential  features  of  the  imperial 
state  is  the  absence  of  the  checks  and  limitations,  the  con- 


dition  of  war  may  be  reached  suddenly,  almost  automatically, 
if  unexpected  resistance  should  arise. 

The  philosophy  of  the  imperial  state  has  been  in  recent 
years  brilliantly  expounded  by  the  historian,  von  Treitschke, 
and  by  his  many  recent  echoes  and  dilutions.  The  resultant 
action  finds  recently  cold-blooded  exposition  in  General  Von 
Bemhardi,  and  in  hundreds  of  his  colleagues  in  the  prop¬ 
aganda  of  Pan-Germanism.  The  events  of  the  last  two 
months,  from  the  attempted  seizure  of  Servia  to  the  desecra¬ 
tion  of  Rheims,  are  all  part  of  a  program  pre-arranged  on  the 
theory  of  the  right  of  imperial  overlordship,  and  of  the  ex¬ 
pansion  of  Germanic  culture  thru  the  force  of  German  military 
efficiency- 

In  the  democratic  nation,  the  government  exists  for  the 
needs  of  the  people  concerned.  The  people  possess  the  govern¬ 
ment  and  whatever  machiner}",  temporary  or  permanent,  the 
government  may  find  necessary  for  its  own  continuation  of 
security.  A  democracy  cannot  consistently  make  war,  either 
active  or  passive  Avar,  except  in  self-defense,  against  the 
menace  of  uncontrolled  neighbors.  It  cannot  exult  in  war 
for  war’s  sake,  nor  can  it  cringe  before  a  special  military 
caste,  privileged  above  other  citizens. 

It  is  conceivable  that,  out  of  the  havoc  of  the  present 
war,  there  may  arise  conditions  favorable  for  the  establish¬ 
ment  of  a  League  of  Peace.  This  hopeful  possibility  has  been 
admirably  stated  by  Mr.  Holt.  It  is  the  duty  of  every  friend 
of  democracy  to  work  for  all  movements  which  favor  per¬ 
manent  peace. 

There  are  many  side  currents  in  the  present  war,  for  no 
War  was  ever  free — even  at  its  inception — from  selfish  in¬ 
fluences.  But  in  its  essence  it  has  become  a  revolt  against  the 
rule  of  force,  a  rebellion  against  all  divine  right  of  kings  or  of 
armies,  of  all  devices  designed  to  uphold  privilege  against 
freedom  and  of  personal  will  over  law. 

It  was  once  said  that  our  “Union  could  not  endure  half 
slave,  half  free.’’  In  like  fashion,  Europe  could  not  exist 
half  democracy,  half  autocracy;  the  divine  rights  of  kings  and 

i6 


of  armies,  alongside  of  the  diviner  “right  of  man,  the  million 
trained  to  be  free.” 

It  is  natural  for  the  people  who  do  not  want  war,  neither 
active  war  nor  passive  war,  to  combine  against  those  who  do. 
Their  formal  union  for  peace  may  mark  the  beginning  of  the 
federation  of  Europe,  for  the  benefit  of  Europe’s  own  people. 
In  such  a  federation  Germany  should  be  an  honored  member 
whenever  the  time  shall  come  for  the  German  people  to  take 
charge  of  the  administration  of  Germany. 

Stanford  University 

Theodore  Marburg 

Formerly  United  States  Minister  to  Belgium 

The  world  will  be  especially  ripe  for  Mr.  Holt’s  sugges¬ 
tion  of  a  League  of  Peace  after  the  present  disastrous  war. 
Unfortunately  it  seems  that  each  generation  must  learn  anew 
its  lesson  of  war.  After  the  present  struggle  so  many  lands 
will  have  had  that  bitter  experience  that  we  may  naturally 
look  for  a  long  era  of  peace  such  as  followed  the  protracted 
and  widespread  Napoleonic  wars.  But  it  is  while  the  picture 
of  this  cataclysm  is  still  throbbing  in  the  minds  of  men  that 
action  should  be  had  on  the  subject  of  setting  up  institutions 
which  promise  to  make  wars  more  difficult.  Mr.  Holt  has 
aptly  pointed  out  that  “Peace  follows  justice,  justice  follows 
law  and  law  follows  political  organization.”  It  is  therefore 
organization  of  various  kinds  for  which  the  world  should  strive 
when  this  awful  contest  is  stilled.  His  suggestion  of  a  group 
of  nations  organized  for  peace  might  prove  fruitful  if  the 
group  in  question  should  represent  a  combined  power  sufficient 
to  overawe  the  lawlessly  inclined. 

When,  after  blocking  in  various  ways  the  movement  for  the 
better  organization  of  the  society  of  nations,  Germany  dis¬ 
dainfully  brushed  aside  Mr.  Churchill’s  proposal  for  a  “naval 
holiday,”  a  suggestion  which  brought  forth  a  resolution  of 
hearty  approval  from  the  Congress  of  the  LInited  States  and 
with  which  other  powers  sympathized,  some  of  us  began  to 


17 


feel  that  perhaps  the  only  way  to  stop  militarism  and  the  ar¬ 
mament  craze  was  for  the  rest  of  the  world  to  combine  against 
Germany  and  if  necessary  overthrow  the  system  by  over¬ 
throwing  the  bureaucracy  and  the  military  class  of  Germany. 
It  is  this  task  of  putting  down  the  law-breaker  which  England 
and  her  allies  have  now  set  themselves. 

England  saved  Belgium  in  1870  by  notifying  both  France 
and  Germany  that  she  would  take  up  arms  against  the  country 
that  violated  Belgium’s  neutrality.  When,  in  response  to  Eng¬ 
land’s  inquiry  at  the  beginning  of  the  present  struggle,  France 
declared  her  intention  to  respect  that  neutrality  and  Germany 
declined  to  do  so,  England  declared  war  on  Germany.  Where 
would  English  honor  be  and  where  the  chivalry  of  the  world 
if  Germany  had  been  suffered  to  trample  Belgium  to  death 
without  a  protest? 

If  we  could  secure  a  promise  now  from  the  allies.  Great 
Britain,  France,  Russia,  Japan,  Belgium  and  Servia,  to  join 
a  League  of  Peace,  formed  somewhat  on  the  lines  indicated  by 
Mr.  Holt,  as  a  condition  precedent  to  our  doing  what  we  ought 
to  do  anyway,  namely,  vent  our  righteous  indignation  at  the 
way  in  which  Germany  has  outraged  Belgium  and  has  trampled 
under  foot  the  law  of  nations  and  the  moral  law  alike,  we 
should  be  accomplishing  the  double  object  of  helping  to  crush 
militarism  and  of  setting  up  an  institution  which  might  bring 
about  a  marked  decline  of  war. 

Are  we  not  again  at  a  turning  point  in  history?  and  will 
it  not  be  for  good  or  accentuated  evil  accordingly  as  the 
right-minded  nations  see  their  duty? 

Baltimore^  Maryland 

Richard  Olney 
Formerly  Secretary  of  State 

The  disarmament  required  of  the  members  of  the  sug¬ 
gested  League  of  Peace  must,  I  think,  be  a  condition  of  the 
League’s  becoming  operative  at  all.  The  parties  to  it  will  be 
nations  armed  and  equipped  for  war  against  all  enemies.  Their 

i8 


good  faith  as  Leaguers  should  be  evidenced  by  their  simulta¬ 
neous  disarming  as  required  by  the  provisions  of  the  League. 
They  can  do  so  by  disposing  of  all  excessive  armament,  either 
to  the  League  itself  or  in  some  other  proper  and  effective 
method.  They  v^ill  do  so,  of  course,  only  if  first  satisfied  that 
their  action  will  not  imperil  national  safety. 

By  what  process  will  they  reach  a  conclusion  on  that 
point?  They  will  no  doubt  give  due  effect  to  logic  and  theo¬ 
retical  reasoning.  But  the  governing  influence,  I  think,  will 
be  the  practical  results  shown  by  the  operation  of  that  inter¬ 
national  League  of  Peace  which  in  its  nature  and  scope  comes 
nearest  to  the  proposed  League.  That  League  is  found  in  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States,  a  League  universally  deemed 
to  be  the  best  devised  and  the  most  important  and  successful  of 
all  similar  leagues.  It  has  been  in  operation  for  a  century  and  a 
quarter.  What  is  its  record  as  a  preventive  of  war?  It  did 
not  prevent  the  war  of  secession,  the  longest  and  bloodiest 
of  civil  wars-  On  the  other  hand,  but  for  the  Constitution 
the  history  of  this  country  since  1789  would  probably  have 
been  a  continuous  chronicle  of  incessant  wars. 

But  a  Constitution,  or  international  League  of  Peace, 
which,  during  125  years  has  caused  the  parties  to  it  to  be  at 
peace  with  one  another  with  a  single  exception,  has  a  right, 
even  tho  that  exception  be  a  momentous  one,  to  be  deemed 
a  most  powerful  conservator  of  international  peace.  On  the 
whole,  therefore,  the  merit  of  your  proposal  is  affirmed  by  the 
experience  of  the  people  of  the  United  States  under  their 
national  Constitution — not  as  being  a  certain  preventive  of  war 
but  as  clearly  tending  in  that  direction.  As  compared  with 
the  League  of  Peace  established  by  our  national  Constitution, 
a  League  embracing  all  the  great  powers  of  the  world  presents 
enormous  difficulties.  But  enormous  difficulties  are  not  neces¬ 
sarily  insuperable,  and  it  is  an  additional  merit  of  your  pro¬ 
posal  that,  leaving  the  realm  of  mere  aspirations  and  dreams, 
it  presents  something  definite  and  tangible  as  a  goal  which 
tlie  peace-lovers  of  all  countries  may  unite  in  seeking  to  reach. 

Boston,  Massachusetts 

ig 


James  Grover  McDonald 
Assistant  Professor  of  European  History 

May  I  express  to  you  my  complete  agreement  with  your 
recent  article,  “The  Way  to  Disarm”?  The  world  should 
be  made  to  see  that  the  four  steps  in  the  evolution  of  private 
law,  which  have  been  so  well  pointed  out  by  Professor  Law¬ 
rence,  have  in  a  rudimentary  manner  been  exactly  paralleled 
in  the  development  of  international  law.  With  this  parallel 
in  mind,  public  opinion  will  understand  that  international 
peace  is  not  a  hopeless  ideal,  but  rather  the  natural  result  of  a 
long  development.  With  this  understanding  as  a  basis,  paci¬ 
fists  should,  following  your  lead,  boldly  advocate  the  creation 
of  governmental  machinery  which  will  make  possible  the  en¬ 
forcement  of  peace  among  nations.  Too  much  has  been  said 
and  written  about  the  horrors  of  war,  too  little  has  been  done 
toward  the  working  out  of  definite  and  tangible  international 
institutions.  Your  suggestion  for  a  League  of  Peace  is  an  ad¬ 
mirable  example  of  the  kind  of  constructive  and  positive  sug¬ 
gestion  which  is  so  badly  needed. 

Indiana  University. 

Park  Benjamin 

Author  of  '‘The  History  of  the  U.  S.  Naval  Acadenty^^ 

Mr.  Holt’s  thesis  seems  to  be  that  the  time  has  gone  by 
when  any  individual  member  of  the  family  of  nations  should 
wield  a  military  power  equal  to  the  aggregate  military  powers 
of  at  least  any  two  other  members,  and  that  such  preponder¬ 
ating  power  should  hereafter  be  lodged  in  all  the  members 
unitedly  or  in  a  collection  of  as  many  of  them  as  can  be  got 
to  unite.  In  other  words — to  use  current  Wall  Street  slang — 
he  wants  to  “syndicate  the  proposition.”  This  is  certainly  con¬ 
structive  and  should  be  the  approved  plan  until  somebody  can 
suggest  something  better.  From  a  military  viewpoint,  the 
syndicate  scheme  would  be  the  most  economical  of  all,  since 
it  would  save  the  multiplication  of  enormously  expensive  ex- 


periments,  repeated  over  and  over  again  by  individual  nations, 
and  concentrate  all  into  a  series  of  crucial  tests  worked  out 
to  the  end.  Things  like  the  present  battleship,  which  are  not 
true  evolutionary  products  and  which  continue  only  by  a  sort 
of  inertia,  would  very  speedily  be  improved  out  of  existence ; 
and  it  would  not  be  necessary,  as  now,  to  wait  for  a  war  to 
find  out  what  is  an  effective  weapon  and  what  is  not- 

New  York  City. 

Caspar  C.  Goodrich 

Rear  Admiral  United  States  Navy,  Retired 

Some  years  ago,  in  The  Nineteenth  Century  and  After, 
I  advocated  in  International  Police,  since  back  of  all  court 
judgments  must  be  the  strong  arm  of  the  state,  something  now 
lacking  at  The  Hague.  Your  League  of  Peace  offers  a  possible 
solution  of  the  problem  of  how  to  raise  and  maintain  such  an 
International  Police.  I  think  you  will  find,  in  this  case,  that 
“Ce  n’est  que  le  premier  pas  qui  coute.”  Let  three,  say,  of  the 
greater  powers  become  charter  members  and  other  powers, 
great  and  small,  will  hasten  to  join.  Can  you  secure  those 
jthree?  There  is  the  crux  of  the  matter.  I  hope  you  can,  for 
if  you  do,  the  trick  will  be  turned. 

Pornfret,  Conn. 

George  A.  Plimpton 
President  of  Ginn  &  Company 

The  League  of  Peace  seems  to  me  an  excellent  suggestion. 
We  must  follow  the  trend  of  evolution.  The  fact  that  peace 
has  been  secured  within  individual  countries  warrants  the  be¬ 
lief  that  the  next  step  will  be  peace  between  these  countries, 
and  the  methods  that  have  brought  this  internal  peace  must 
be  adopted  to  obtain  international  peace.  I  do  not  think  you 
exaggerate  the  importance  of  the  part  which  the  United  States 
will  play  in  the  final  solution  of  the  problem.  Our  efforts  will 
surely  be  disinterested. 

N^w  York  City, 


21 


William  I.  Hull 

Author  of  "The  Tzvo  Hague  Conferences ' 

Mr.  Holt’s  article  renders  two  signal  services  to  the  dis¬ 
cussion  of  the  great  problem  of  international  peace.  First — 
it  emphasizes  the  fact  of  fundamental  importance  that  it  is 
primarily  a  political  problem,  namely,  the  organization  of  a 
world  federation  and  the  substitution  of  law  for  force.  Second 
— it  emphasizes  the  competitive  increase  of  armaments  as 
one  of  the  prime  causes  of  the  present  war,  and  proposes  a 
concrete  method  of  reducing  national  armaments  to  a  mini¬ 
mum. 

As  to  practical  carrying  out  of  the  plan  suggested  by  him, 
T  would  urge  that  the  League  shall  be  agreed  upon  by  all  of 
the  nations  of  the  third  Hague  Conference  and  shall  go  into 
effect  when  ratified  by  three-fourths  of  the  governments  re¬ 
presented  at  that  conference.  This  amendment  would  be  in  line 
with  the  precedent  set  in  the  adoption  of  the  United  States 
Constitution,  and  would  have  the  great  advantage  of  being 
based  upon  the  twentieth  century  principle  of  a  world-wide 
agreement  and  not  upon  the  principle  of  partial  alliances  which 
has  caused  so  much  trouble  in  the  past  and  which  is  the  other 
prime  cause  (together  with  the  competitive  increase  in  arma¬ 
ments)  of  the  present  war. 

Swarthmore,  Penn. 

Samuel  Bowles 

Editor  of  the  Springfield  Republican 

I  have  read  with  interest,  sympathy  and  approval  your 
plan  for  an  international  League  of  Peace. 

Springfield,  Mass. 

William  H.  Short 

Secretary  of  the  N ezv  York  Peace  Society 

I  believe  that  your  article  will  attract  widespread  and 
favorable  attention.  In  those  far  off  times  before  the  begin- 


ning  of  the  Great  War  in  August,  191^1 — far  ofif  as  measured 
by  the  movement  of  thought  on  international  affairs — we  were 
told  by  those  best  acquainted  with  the  governing  classes  of 
Europe,  that  such  things  as  your  article  contains  must  not  be 
said.  We  were  assured  that  the  nations  of  Europe  were  con¬ 
trolled  by  governing  castes  which  did  not  want  to  hand  over 
any  of  their  perogatives  to  an  international  government.  We 
were  asked  to  draw  a  veil  over  the  eyes  of  our  seers  and  to 
curb  the  enthusiasm  of  our  orators.  We  were  assured  that 
the  unwillingness  of  Europe  to  have  a  meeting  of  the  third 
Hague  Peace  Conference  take  place  was  due  to  the  fact  that 
they  had  been  offended  and  had  taken  fright  at  the  rash  sug¬ 
gestions  which  had  come  to  them  from  America  looking  toward 
the  establishment  of  a  world  federation  for  peace.  The  dip¬ 
lomats  were,  no  doubt,  right  at  that  time.  A  new  situation, 
however,  now  exists,  or  will  exist  before  the  end  of  this  awful 
war,  in  which  projects  hitherto  impossible  of  accomplishment 
may  prove  to  be  within  the  realm  of  practical  politics.  We 
are,  therefore,  permitted  to  hope  that  at  no  distant  day  the 
nations  may  be  ready  to  adopt  the  simple,  practical  and  alto¬ 
gether  desirable  plan  you  propose  for  guaranteeing  the  posses¬ 
sions  and  the  right  of  the  justice-loving  nations  by  means  of  a 
non-burdensome,  non-militaristic,  international  police. 

New  York  City. 


John  L.  Harris 

President  of  the  Board  of  Education 

The  able  and  timely  editorial,  “The  Way  to  Disarm,”  has 
given  new  vigor  to  the  peace  movement  and  has  again  aroused 
to  action  many  discouraged  peace  advocates. 

Kelso,  Wash. 

Topeka  State  Journal 

The  proposal  made  by  Mr.  Holt  is  a  distinctive  and 
definite  one,  where  generalities  have  been  the  order  before, 
and  one  that  merits  the  careful  consideration  of  the  peace  pro¬ 
tagonists.  He  has  done  a  valuable  service  in  its  presentation. 


23 


New  York  Evening  Post 

That  the  world  should  go  on,  after  the  appalling  ex¬ 
periences  which  it  is  now  undergoing,  upon  the  old  basis  of 
mere  blind  competition  in  preparedness  for  general  destruc¬ 
tion,  is  a  prospect  to  which  no  thinking  mind  can  reconcile 
itself.  When  the  bloodshed  and  devastation  come  to  an  end, 
the  best  thought  in  every  nation  must  be  centered  upon  the 
possibilities  of  remedy.  And  it  is  not  improbable  that  it  will 
be  along  some  such  lines  as  those  indicated  by  Mr.  Holt  that 
the  remedy  will  be  sought. 

Christian  Science  Monitor 

No  doubt,  like  the  federation  of  the  colonies  that  shaped 
the  first  compact  under  which  the  United  States  began 
national  existence,  the  looseness  of  such  a  league  would  in  time 
force  action  that  would  insure  a  more  closely  knit  world- 
state  pledged  to  peace.  The  point  to  be  noted  now  is  that,  as 
a  result  of  the  present  war,  statesmen  and  publicists  in  all 
countries  begin  to  talk  about  the  end  of  militarism  and  about 
making  a  peace  for  peace’s  sake,  and  on  a  basis  that  will 
make  another  great  martial  conflict  impossible.  An  alliance 
to  conserve  world  stability,  commercial  prosperity  and  na¬ 
tional  fraternity  comes  to  be  talked  of  as  the  successor  of 
recent  triple  alliances  and  ententes.  Mr.  Holt  is  using  his 
liberty  as  a  thinker  to  get  his  plan  before  the  public ;  and  for 
his  enterprise  and  zeal  deserves  praise. 

St.  Joseph  Nezvs 

In  the  Independent,  Hamilton  Holt  has  a  suggestion  for 
establishing  permanent  peace  after  the  present  European  war 
shall  have  been  ended. 

One  is  reminded  of  Tennyson’s  dream  in  Locksley  Hall  of 

The  parliament  of  man, 

The  federation  of  the  world. 

However,  it  is  of  dreams  that  all  progress  comes  and  who 
can  say  that  the  “League  of  Peace”  may  not  come  to  pass 


24 


some  day.  That  it  may,  and  soon,  is  the  prayer  of  all 
Americans. 

Pittsburgh  Post 

In  The  Independent,  Hamilton  Holt  has  a  suggestion  for 
Holt  has  an  article  entitled,  ‘‘How  to  Disarm.”  It  is  worth 
serious  attention  now,  and  the  time  may  arrive,  after  this  war’s 
grand  settlement  day,  when  the  nations  will  be  eager  to  accept 
in  principle  the  ideas  he  advances. 

Kansas  City  Star 

Doubtless  Mr.  Holt’s  suggestion  will  be  dismissed  as  “im¬ 
practical”  by  many  European  statesmen — perhaps  by  most  of 
them.  But  is  there  anything  less  “practical”  than  the  work  of 
the  “practical”  statesmen  which  has  resulted  in  the  catastrophe 
of  the  present  war? 


Syracuse  Herald 

If  Mr.  Holt’s  imaginary  League  of  Peace  had  existed 
three  months  ago,  and  had  embraced  in  its  membership  all 
the  European  powers,  or  the  powers  outside  of  the  Triple 
Alliance,  the  war  would  have  been  an  impossibility. 

Wilmington  Every  Evening 

Mr.  Hamilton  Holt,  the  able  editor  of  The  Independent, 
offers  to  the  public  a  proposition  of  disarmament,  as  a  pre¬ 
lude  to  abandonment  of  wars  between  nations 

Why  not?  It  is  evident  from  the  bloody  experiences  that 
Europe  has  undergone  during  the  past  few  years  and  is  still 
groaning  under,  that  modern  war  is  a  great  slaughter,  a  tre¬ 
mendous  destruction  of  property.  It  is  admitted,  also,  that 
nations  may,  if  they  will,  get  along  without  resort  to  the  ar¬ 
bitrament  of  cruel  war. 

Milwaukee  Journal 

When  Mr.  Holt  or  any  other  man  proposes  a  plan  for 
insuring  world  peace,  he  takes  it  out  of  the  realm  of  visions 


25 


for  the  future  and  puts  it  up  to  us  now  as  our  responsibility. 
And  history  shows  us  that  once  such  a  question  is  really  raised 
it  does  not  down  until  it  is  settled  and  settled  rightly. 

Army  and  Navy  Journal 

Proceeding  from  certain  false  premises  Mr.  Holt  naturally 
reaches  mistaken  conclusions  and  his  scheme  seems  to  us  to 
go  to  the  very  limit  of  impracticability. 


26 


The  Church  Peace  Union 

{Founded  by  Andrew  Carnegie) 

TRUSTEES 


Rev.  Peter  Ainslie_,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  Baltimore,  Md. 

Rev.  Arthur  Judson  Brown,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  New  York. 

Rev.  Francis  E.  Clark,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  Boston,  Mass. 
President  W.  H.  P.  Faunce,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  Providence,  R.  L 
His  Eminence,  James  Cardinal  Gibbons,  Baltimore,  Md. 
Rt.  Rev.  David  PL  Greer,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  New  York 
Rev.  Frank  O.  Hall,  D.D.,  New  York. 

Bishop  E.  R.  Hendrix,  D.D.,  Kansas  City,  Mo. 

Rabbi  Emil  G.  Hirsch,  LL.D.,  Chicago,  Ill. 

Hamilton  Holt,  New  York. 

Professor  William  I.  Hull,  Ph.D.,  Swarthmore,  Pa. 

Rev.  Charles  E.  Jefferson,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  New  York. 

Rev.  Jenkin  Lloyd  Jones,  LL.D.,  Chicago,  Ill. 

Rt.  Rev.  William  Lawrence,  D.D.,  Boston,  Mass. 

Rev.  Frederick  Lynch,  D.D.,  New  York. 

Rev.  Charles  S.  Macfarland,  Ph.D.,  New  York. 

Marcus  M.  Marks,  New  York 

Dean  Shailer  Mathews,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  Chicago,  Ill. 

Edwin  D.  Mead,  M.A.,  Boston,  Mass. 

Rev.  William  Pierson  Merrill,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  New  York. 
John  R.  Mott,  LL.D.,  New  York 
George  A.  Plimpton,  LL.D.,  New  York. 

Rev.  Julius  B.  Remensnyder,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  New  York. 
Judge  Henry  Wade  Rogers,  LL.D.,  New  York. 

Robert  E.  Speer,  D.D.,  New  York. 

Francis  Lynde  Stetson,  New  York. 

James  J.  Walsh,  M.D.,  New  York. 

Bishop  Luther  B.  Wilson,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  New  York. 


